it is strange to find people, with hearts filled with hatred, accusing prophet muhammad, pbuh, of violence and cruelty; or that he propagated the religion of islam with swords!

but the truth was said by great men of knowledge, science, and wisdom. they responded to and rejected these false accusations.

one of the most eminent defenders of the prophet, a man who proved the falsehood of the accusations, is the french historian louis sedillot. he writes: “it is such a distortion of facts in history when some writers accuse prophet muhammad, pbuh, of cruelty. (…) they forget that he spared no effort in eliminating the inherited desire for revenge between arabs; despite the fact that revenge was highly esteemed in arabia like fencing was in europe. they don’t read the qur’anic verse by which the prophet broke the horrible habit of burying newborn girls alive. they never think of the pardon he granted to his worst enemies after the conquest of makka. neither do they consider the mercy he showed to many tribes during war. (…) do they not know that he never misused his power in fulfilling the desire for cruelty? if any of his companions committed anything wrong, he would stop them and correct them. it is well known that he refused the opinion of his close companion ‘omar bin al-khattab on killing the prisoners of war. when the time came to punish bani quraydha, he left the judgment to sa‘d bin mu‘ath who used to be their ally. he also forgave hamza’s killer and never refused any request for kindness and forgiveness.”[1]

researcher karen armstrong writes in the introduction to her book muhammad: a biography of the prophet: “it is wrong to assume, as some say, that islam holds violence and intolerance in its essence. the fact is that islam is a global religion, and is not, at all, characterised by any aggressive eastern attributes against the west.”[2]

some westerners found that these allegations are caused by old resentments. armstrong continues: “we, in the west, are in need to free ourselves from some old resentment. and perhaps it is good to start with prophet muhammad, pbuh. he was a very compassionate man. (…) he founded a religion and a cultural tradition that was not based on the sword, despite the western myth, and whose name ‘islam’ signifies peace and reconciliation.”[3]

german thinker dison says: “it is a mistake for one to believe what others are trying to promote about islam, that its progress and establishment is firstly owed to the sword. the first reason behind the spread of islam is the unique religious brotherhood and the new social life it prepared and called for. it is also owed to the honourable life led by prophet muhammad, pbuh, and the caliphs afterwards. their lives were full of virtue and sacrifice to a level that gave islam a great unbeatable power.”[4]

the dutch scholar dozy clarifies and assures that prophet muhammad, pbuh, did not force anyone to embrace islam. he says with few but decisive words: “it was not forced on anyone!”[5]

there is not a single proof that prophet muhammad, not even for once, forced any human being to embrace islam, not even with emotional pressure. then how is it true that he used violence and swords?!

great historian gustav lobon argues: “islam did not spread by the sword, but only by preaching. only by that was it embraced by the people who defeated the arabs recently, such as turks and mongols. the qur’an reached india; the place where arabs were only passers-by. (…) and it wasn’t any less spread in china in which arabs conquered no land.”[6]

he adds: “power was not a factor in the spread of islam; that’s because arabs left the people they vanquished free to practice their own religion.”[7]

laura veccia vaglieri expresses: “islam does not allow drawing a sword except in self-defence; it utterly forbids hostility. the law of islam allows battle in defence of conscience freedom to establish peace and ensure safety and order.”[8]

that was what happened in several battles such as the battle of badr (17th ramadan 2 a.h. / 13th march 624 a.d.), the battle of ‘uhud (shawwal 3 a.h. / april 624 a.d.), and the battle of al-ahzab (shawwal 5 a.h. / march 627 a.d.). they all were battles in self-defence.

other battles such as the battle of qaynuqa‘ (saturday 15th shawwal 2 a.h. / 9th april 624 a.d.), the battle of nadir ( rabi’ awwal 4 a.h. / august 265 a.d.), the battle of qurayza (dhi al-qi‘da 5 a.h. / april 627 a.d.), and the battle of khaybar (muharram 7 a.h. / may 628 a.d.) were all results of treachery, allying against muslims, violation of agreements, and attempts of assassinating the prophet, pbuh.